Regarding the header cartoon, let me post some links to the papers because Google keeps removing them and young people wouldn't remember it.
And the fascinating story of the continued removal of this cold, hard fact (excuse the pun)
And the facts show that science doesn't know EITHER WAY. We just don't. That humility and scepticism is critical in science, otherwise it's an agenda.
We have heard it all before. They are always wrong but call us science deniers. Well I have news for them, pay attention:
The scientific method requires hypothesis match findings, when they don't the hypothesis needs scrutiny, and this is the driving force behind what we can empirically conclude to be that science always advances. Without this method the truth required to make planes fly and cell phone specs improve would not be reachable.
Religious faith has no empirical observation metrics, but we can find an empirical correlation between how religion manifests and the changing values of the culture and values of the time. Whichever we chose as metrics the values will always be influenced by the values of the current contemporary society. The texts don't change, just the interpretation so it follows logically that the religious values of a century ago (or a century from now) will not be the same as now. This is widely accepted and is a defacto confession that nothing in faith right now can be true, it must logically qualify as a trend, or fad evolving further from the source text rather than closer to the understanding that produces the tech that works (defacto proof). The sensationalist fear-mongering in MSM from the politically guided and grant funded Scientific community, and their MSM personalities, does NOT work.
And perhaps that is why people have lost interest
(here's the text below)
Since the hypothetical models and conclusions of alarmists keeps changing, and no warming has matched models, and cooling has set in, we can only conclude that it's not knowable if we affect the climate at all, but we are logically compelled to say that so far with certainty, there is a 100% probability that we are not the sole contributer (there was s climate before humans) and cannot be the most significant factor either, as stated by the cataclysmic feedback model, this claim is actually impossible and a logical fact so nobody can have a different opinion, they can only be wrong.
It is a myth that this is a debate, it's not, it is a fact that we cannot possibly know. Its proven if we agree on the current understanding of words, we have no accurate models, and the chance we are a significant contributer can't be ruled out but does not appear to be likely.
If we are looking to prove that, that is called an agenda. That correct definition of this process is a political goal. Science must without prejudice observe outcomes and describe actual observation, even if it refutes the hypothesis. The hypothesis must now account for new observation, this is called progress even if the hypothesis fails. Truth wins. Establishment of a hypothesis as false is considered progress in science, science does value having falsehood considered true for ideological goes, that dynamic is valued in politics when you have made claims requiring funding, and it is your party that argues it is best positioned to determine policy.
Therefore anyone making assertion that humans drive climate change that does not have proven models for the two criteria below, must according to logic, be the science denier.
1) You would need to be able to isolate and quantify every aspect contributing to climate (isolating and removing human contribution) within an agreed margin of accuracy.
2) You must be able to demonstrate which human activities affect climate, quantify them, and demonstrate a method of establishing our precise affect, and this method must be repeatable, and the results must meet the margin of error agreements.
It is not realistic to assert this is within our reach.
This allows us to conclude with certainty that scepticism is the only Scientific conclusion. Saying the science is settled places you, by the rules of the scientific method, as a science denier. This is not debatable unless we revise the scientific method.
Lets recap: where did this all start? play clip.
My suggestion? Go a step further and collect data from their own sources before they go back and revise facts, like this example:
Here in this post I give you one simple yet effective way for anyone with an internet connection to get the raw data.